| 查看: 4251 | 回复: 61 | |||||
| 当前只显示满足指定条件的回帖，点击这里查看本话题的所有回帖 | |||||
[交流]
第一次遇到棘手的审稿意见，难缠啊
|
|||||
|
第一次修改意见（第二个审稿人） Some aggregation operators for aggregating XXXXXXX are proposed and then applied to resolve multiple attribute group decision making. However, the main results of this paper are just the simple extensions of the known ones. Therefore, I don't think this paper has enough novelty to be published. There are also other problems: 1. Definitions 5, 6, 7 and 8 should be given explanations, why does the paper give such definitions to denote the score and accuracy functions of XXXXXXX ? （第三个审稿人） Notation sometimes is not easy to follow. Please check whether it is possible to ease the presentation.- I suggest to improve the section related to the experimentation of the proposed method by adding a comparison with at least one competing approach, and enlarging the test to some other possibly synthetic scenario to allow the reader to better catch the effectiveness of the authors' proposal. 第二次修改意见（第二个审稿人） The interval-valued intuitionistic trapezoidal fuzzy number is unclear in practical applications. The practical meaning must be explained with a concrete example (case). The numerical example is too simple, which can not be used to demonstrate the approach. More complex case illustration is necessary. （我不太清楚，为什么要用复杂的算例， 我觉得我算例已经分析的很清楚，而且从理论上证明了） （第三个审稿人） The revised version of the paper have improved the contribution. I still believe that a comparison with at least one competing approach, and enlarging the test to some other possibly synthetic scenario to allow the reader to better catch the effectiveness of the authors' proposal may improve the paper. 第三次修改意见（第二个审稿人） It is clear that the authors have not answered my two questions given in the comments. （第三个审稿人） The revised version of the paper has addressed my comment about the comparison with competing approaches. However, this comparison is made at theoretical level. I wonder whether this may be also added in the example illustrated by the authors. After this the paper can be accepted for publication. (我在算例当中已经做了比较分析， 不知道为什么审稿人只是说我做了理论分析) |
回复此楼» 收录本帖的淘帖专辑推荐
 论文投稿交流的收集 | 审稿意见 |
» 猜你喜欢
有多少人是今天查系统知道结果的？
已经有17人回复
-
基金不中，共勉
已经有4人回复
-
国自然面上复盘~欢迎讨论
已经有5人回复
-
我不理解！
已经有23人回复
-
2026年的国家社科基金项目通讯评审的新规则与新动向、新挑战
已经有10人回复
-
系统查不到
已经有10人回复
-
怎么查啊
已经有5人回复
-
范进中举一文的中心思想
已经有10人回复
-
2026国自然函评费到账
已经有25人回复
-
2026年8月25日国自然放榜前突然收到列入评审专家邮件，有关系吗？
已经有28人回复
11楼2013-03-08 19:37:46
12楼2013-03-08 19:38:41
简单回复
2013-03-08 19:26
回复
jyajian(金币+1): 谢谢参与
